Prouty v. Clayton County, 60395
| Decision Date | 19 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 60395,60395 |
| Citation | 264 N.W.2d 761 |
| Parties | William A. PROUTY, and Cheryl Prouty, a minor, by William A. Prouty, her father and next friend, Appellants, v. CLAYTON COUNTY, Iowa, Clayton County Iowa Board of Supervisors, Gerald Stence, Kermit Klinge and Charles Meyers, as Members of the Clayton County, Iowa Board of Supervisors, and Clayton County, Iowa Engineer, Milton Johnson, Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Mark D. Buchheit, West Union, for appellants.
Harold H. Pahlas, County Atty., and Kevin H. Clefisch, Asst. County Atty., for appellees.
Considered by MOORE, C. J., and MASON, UHLENHOPP, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ.
This case arises from defendant County's alleged failure to maintain a road, eight-tenths of a mile long, that runs adjacent to property owned and resided upon by plaintiffs. Trial court dismissed plaintiffs' damage and mandamus action whereby they sought to compel county maintenance of the road. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On November 20, 1975, plaintiffs commenced the present action in Clayton County District Court alleging that defendants, in contravention of their legal duties, had failed to maintain the road. Plaintiffs further alleged the condition of the road was so dilapidated that it interfered with the access to their properties to a substantial degree. They prayed that a writ of mandamus issue ordering defendants to "take all appropriate steps" to repair the road and for damages in the amount of $3100.
After defendants answered denying the material allegations of the petition, plaintiffs amended their petition claiming defendants had deposited materials, including trees, on plaintiffs' private lane and raised the prayer to $6100 for damages incurred subsequent to the original filing. Defendants filed a timely answer to the amendment.
Over two and one-half years later (no discovery was ever initiated) defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting mandamus was not the appropriate remedy to compel an exercise of their discretion. The motion was supported by affidavits wherein the county engineer and one board member stated the road was maintained in the same manner as similar roads in the county.
Plaintiffs filed a resistance supported by counter-affidavits in which plaintiff William Prouty and his brother stated the road was not properly maintained.
After hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment the trial court ruled:
" * * *. The Motion for Summary Judgment of the Defendants is not the proper remedy to reach the verdict, which the Defendants desire, so that the Court, of necessity is going to deny the request for Motion For Summary Judgment; however, in order to properly determine this case once and for all, the Court is going to treat the Motion for Summary Judgment as a Motion To Dismiss, and this cause is hereby dismissed for failure of the Plaintiffs to state a cause of action, and this cause is hereby dismissed at Plaintiffs' costs."
Plaintiffs have appealed from the court's sua sponte order treating defendants' motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss and dismissal of their petition on the ground it failed to state a cause of action. Defendants have not cross-appealed.
I. The general rule is that the moving party is confined to the relief asked for in his motion, or specified in the notice of hearing. 60 C.J.S. Motions and Orders ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunha v. City of Algona
...upon which any relief may be granted under any state of fact which may be proved in support of the claim asserted. Prouty v. Clayton County, 264 N.W.2d 761, 763 (Iowa 1978). Moreover, we have notice pleading. Iowa R.Civ.P. We need not decide, however, whether a stricter pleading standard ap......
-
U.S. v. Spallone
...Harrigan v. Mason & Winograd, Inc., 121 R.I. 209, 213, 397 A.2d 514, 516 (R.I.1979)(internal citations omitted); see Prouty v. Clayton County, 264 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1978); 56 Am.Jur.2d Motions § 48 (West Although "[c]ourt orders `must ordinarily be interpreted by examination of only the "fou......
-
Harrigan v. Mason & Winograd, Inc., 77-46-A
...Generally, however, an order will not be construed as going beyond the motion in pursuance of which the order is made. Prouty v. Clayton County, 264 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1978); State v. Weger, 211 N.W.2d 322 (Iowa 1973); 60 C.J.S. Motions and Orders § 64 at 110; 56 Am.Jur.2d Motions, Rules, and......
-
Hackes v. Hackes
...Generally . . . an order will not be construed as going beyond the motion in pursuance of which the order is made[,] Prouty v. Clayton County, 264 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1978); State v. Weger, 211 N.W.2d 322 (Iowa 1973); 60 C.J.S. Motions and Orders § 64 at 110; 56 Am. Jur.2d Motions, Rules and O......